Re: [ALAC] Something we didn't think about.
My understanding is that legally we are in murky water, since we seemingly have no formal way to stop the applications that have passed the objection, and no way to overturn the rejection, yet all three must be treated the same way. So perhaps you can define what "good sense" dictates? Hindsight says that we should have insisted that all string similarity objections be groups together, suing the sum-total of the arguments for and against. But in our collective wisdom, we didn't. Alan At 20/08/2013 10:03 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
.....the zealot Paul [of Christian scriptures] says it this way 'we see in part, and we prophesy in part'.
So now then, here's a perfect opportunity to see if good sense will prevail. -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Verisign filed string-similarity objections against the three applications for .CAM. Two were decided last week (by the same panelist) against Verisign. The third, hear by a different panelist, decided for Verisign.
A string similarity decision is supposed to be based on the strings themselves and not the usage, but the AG does not contemplate this occurrence.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
On 20/08/2013 17:20, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Hindsight says that we should have insisted that all string similarity objections be groups together, suing the sum-total of the arguments for and against. But in our collective wisdom, we didn't. Substitute /we/ with /ICANN/
Also, nice Freudian slip of suing -> using. Kind regards, Oliver
At 20/08/2013 11:53 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
On 20/08/2013 17:20, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Hindsight says that we should have insisted that all string similarity objections be groups together, suing the sum-total of the arguments for and against. But in our collective wisdom, we didn't. Substitute /we/ with /ICANN/
Not really, that was a real WE. Plenty of opportunities for all of us to have caught this earlier...
Also, nice Freudian slip of suing -> using. Oops
I'm not overly concerned about this from an end users perspective. This is a matter between warring parties within ICANN's commercial sectors and IMO well beyond ALAC's sphere of concern. As soon as any application for the string was judged to be non-confusing, what little interest At-Large had in this matter vanished.
From an end-users PoV on confusing strings, the domain name system is already well-poisoned. ICANN has already been seen to be silent when registrars deliberately use the confusion between .COM and .CO as a selling point. (That CC names are beyond ICANN's ability to manage -- even when being used as generics -- is a subtlety lost on the public.) And If nobody cares about the confusion between .COM and .CO, then it's hard to get suddenly concerned about confusion between .CAM and .COM (and also .CA or .CAT, for that matter) and even harder to want to get involved in the associated infighting.
The only product that I have extracted from this event is entertainment. I find the variety in rulings (two applications for a string non-confusing, but a third application for the exactly same string judged to be confusing) to be highly amusing in its inconsistency. As Alan has said, the AGB rules don't anticipate this, so a few more lawyers will be blessing ICANN's existence to pay for their Range Rovers. Certainly there are those who won't find this funny, But to someone like me who believes the current gTLD expansion is a stupendous mistake, this event is just Business as Usual. It's one more demonstration of the many unintended consequences that such a botched effort was sure to produce. Many have been revealed so far and there sill surely be more to come, including some that will be far more severe than this. And given its scale, its complexity, and the sheer greed that motivated much of it, anticipating all consequences of the expansion was simply impossible. IMO, one of ALAC's ongoing roles in this is to track and filter these consequences, focused on minimizing harm from those after-effects that will affect end-users. This is not one of them, from what I can tell. - Evan On 20 August 2013 12:57, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
At 20/08/2013 11:53 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
On 20/08/2013 17:20, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Hindsight says that we should have insisted that all string similarity objections be groups together, suing the sum-total of the arguments for and against. But in our collective wisdom, we didn't. Substitute /we/ with /ICANN/
Not really, that was a real WE. Plenty of opportunities for all of us to have caught this earlier...
Also, nice Freudian slip of suing -> using.
Oops
______________________________**_________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.**org/mailman/listinfo/alac<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/**display/atlarge/At-Large+ **Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...>
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
The problem of inconsistency of the decisions lies largely in the case procedural management, rather than the AGK or the rules. If all 3 objections were filed roughly at the same time, there is no reason for the IDRC to appoint 2 different panels. Hong On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
I'm not overly concerned about this from an end users perspective.
This is a matter between warring parties within ICANN's commercial sectors and IMO well beyond ALAC's sphere of concern. As soon as any application for the string was judged to be non-confusing, what little interest At-Large had in this matter vanished.
From an end-users PoV on confusing strings, the domain name system is already well-poisoned. ICANN has already been seen to be silent when registrars deliberately use the confusion between .COM and .CO as a selling point. (That CC names are beyond ICANN's ability to manage -- even when being used as generics -- is a subtlety lost on the public.) And If nobody cares about the confusion between .COM and .CO, then it's hard to get suddenly concerned about confusion between .CAM and .COM (and also .CA or .CAT, for that matter) and even harder to want to get involved in the associated infighting.
The only product that I have extracted from this event is entertainment. I find the variety in rulings (two applications for a string non-confusing, but a third application for the exactly same string judged to be confusing) to be highly amusing in its inconsistency. As Alan has said, the AGB rules don't anticipate this, so a few more lawyers will be blessing ICANN's existence to pay for their Range Rovers.
Certainly there are those who won't find this funny, But to someone like me who believes the current gTLD expansion is a stupendous mistake, this event is just Business as Usual. It's one more demonstration of the many unintended consequences that such a botched effort was sure to produce. Many have been revealed so far and there sill surely be more to come, including some that will be far more severe than this. And given its scale, its complexity, and the sheer greed that motivated much of it, anticipating all consequences of the expansion was simply impossible.
IMO, one of ALAC's ongoing roles in this is to track and filter these consequences, focused on minimizing harm from those after-effects that will affect end-users. This is not one of them, from what I can tell.
- Evan
On 20 August 2013 12:57, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
At 20/08/2013 11:53 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
On 20/08/2013 17:20, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Hindsight says that we should have insisted that all string similarity objections be groups together, suing the sum-total of the arguments for and against. But in our collective wisdom, we didn't. Substitute /we/ with /ICANN/
Not really, that was a real WE. Plenty of opportunities for all of us to have caught this earlier...
Also, nice Freudian slip of suing -> using.
Oops
______________________________**_________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.**org/mailman/listinfo/alac<; https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/**display/atlarge/At-Large+ **Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)< https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China
*Hong +1.* 2013/8/21 Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com>
The problem of inconsistency of the decisions lies largely in the case procedural management, rather than the AGK or the rules. If all 3 objections were filed roughly at the same time, there is no reason for the IDRC to appoint 2 different panels.
Hong
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
I'm not overly concerned about this from an end users perspective.
This is a matter between warring parties within ICANN's commercial sectors and IMO well beyond ALAC's sphere of concern. As soon as any application for the string was judged to be non-confusing, what little interest At-Large had in this matter vanished.
From an end-users PoV on confusing strings, the domain name system is already well-poisoned. ICANN has already been seen to be silent when registrars deliberately use the confusion between .COM and .CO as a selling point. (That CC names are beyond ICANN's ability to manage -- even when being used as generics -- is a subtlety lost on the public.) And If nobody cares about the confusion between .COM and .CO, then it's hard to get suddenly concerned about confusion between .CAM and .COM (and also .CA or .CAT, for that matter) and even harder to want to get involved in the associated infighting.
The only product that I have extracted from this event is entertainment. I find the variety in rulings (two applications for a string non-confusing, but a third application for the exactly same string judged to be confusing) to be highly amusing in its inconsistency. As Alan has said, the AGB rules don't anticipate this, so a few more lawyers will be blessing ICANN's existence to pay for their Range Rovers.
Certainly there are those who won't find this funny, But to someone like me who believes the current gTLD expansion is a stupendous mistake, this event is just Business as Usual. It's one more demonstration of the many unintended consequences that such a botched effort was sure to produce. Many have been revealed so far and there sill surely be more to come, including some that will be far more severe than this. And given its scale, its complexity, and the sheer greed that motivated much of it, anticipating all consequences of the expansion was simply impossible.
IMO, one of ALAC's ongoing roles in this is to track and filter these consequences, focused on minimizing harm from those after-effects that will affect end-users. This is not one of them, from what I can tell.
- Evan
On 20 August 2013 12:57, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
At 20/08/2013 11:53 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
On 20/08/2013 17:20, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Hindsight says that we should have insisted that all string similarity objections be groups together, suing the sum-total of the arguments for and against. But in our collective wisdom, we didn't. Substitute /we/ with /ICANN/
Not really, that was a real WE. Plenty of opportunities for all of us to have caught this earlier...
Also, nice Freudian slip of suing -> using.
Oops
______________________________**_________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.**org/mailman/listinfo/alac<; https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/**display/atlarge/At-Large+ **Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)<
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
+1. And one of the best points of departure for judging grievance in the district court. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com> wrote:
The problem of inconsistency of the decisions lies largely in the case procedural management, rather than the AGK or the rules. If all 3 objections were filed roughly at the same time, there is no reason for the IDRC to appoint 2 different panels.
Hong
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
I'm not overly concerned about this from an end users perspective.
This is a matter between warring parties within ICANN's commercial sectors and IMO well beyond ALAC's sphere of concern. As soon as any application for the string was judged to be non-confusing, what little interest At-Large had in this matter vanished.
From an end-users PoV on confusing strings, the domain name system is already well-poisoned. ICANN has already been seen to be silent when registrars deliberately use the confusion between .COM and .CO as a selling point. (That CC names are beyond ICANN's ability to manage -- even when being used as generics -- is a subtlety lost on the public.) And If nobody cares about the confusion between .COM and .CO, then it's hard to get suddenly concerned about confusion between .CAM and .COM (and also .CA or .CAT, for that matter) and even harder to want to get involved in the associated infighting.
The only product that I have extracted from this event is entertainment. I find the variety in rulings (two applications for a string non-confusing, but a third application for the exactly same string judged to be confusing) to be highly amusing in its inconsistency. As Alan has said, the AGB rules don't anticipate this, so a few more lawyers will be blessing ICANN's existence to pay for their Range Rovers.
Certainly there are those who won't find this funny, But to someone like me who believes the current gTLD expansion is a stupendous mistake, this event is just Business as Usual. It's one more demonstration of the many unintended consequences that such a botched effort was sure to produce. Many have been revealed so far and there sill surely be more to come, including some that will be far more severe than this. And given its scale, its complexity, and the sheer greed that motivated much of it, anticipating all consequences of the expansion was simply impossible.
IMO, one of ALAC's ongoing roles in this is to track and filter these consequences, focused on minimizing harm from those after-effects that will affect end-users. This is not one of them, from what I can tell.
- Evan
On 20 August 2013 12:57, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
At 20/08/2013 11:53 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
On 20/08/2013 17:20, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Hindsight says that we should have insisted that all string similarity objections be groups together, suing the sum-total of the arguments for and against. But in our collective wisdom, we didn't. Substitute /we/ with /ICANN/
Not really, that was a real WE. Plenty of opportunities for all of us to have caught this earlier...
Also, nice Freudian slip of suing -> using.
Oops
______________________________**_________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.**org/mailman/listinfo/alac<; https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/**display/atlarge/At-Large+ **Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)<
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
+1, especially with the insight on entertainment bit. As I watch this enfold and recall Evan's consistent voice in this area, its hard not to think like the yokel at a NASCAR event; he goes for the crash he thinks is inevitable. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
I'm not overly concerned about this from an end users perspective.
This is a matter between warring parties within ICANN's commercial sectors and IMO well beyond ALAC's sphere of concern. As soon as any application for the string was judged to be non-confusing, what little interest At-Large had in this matter vanished.
From an end-users PoV on confusing strings, the domain name system is already well-poisoned. ICANN has already been seen to be silent when registrars deliberately use the confusion between .COM and .CO as a selling point. (That CC names are beyond ICANN's ability to manage -- even when being used as generics -- is a subtlety lost on the public.) And If nobody cares about the confusion between .COM and .CO, then it's hard to get suddenly concerned about confusion between .CAM and .COM (and also .CA or .CAT, for that matter) and even harder to want to get involved in the associated infighting.
The only product that I have extracted from this event is entertainment. I find the variety in rulings (two applications for a string non-confusing, but a third application for the exactly same string judged to be confusing) to be highly amusing in its inconsistency. As Alan has said, the AGB rules don't anticipate this, so a few more lawyers will be blessing ICANN's existence to pay for their Range Rovers.
Certainly there are those who won't find this funny, But to someone like me who believes the current gTLD expansion is a stupendous mistake, this event is just Business as Usual. It's one more demonstration of the many unintended consequences that such a botched effort was sure to produce. Many have been revealed so far and there sill surely be more to come, including some that will be far more severe than this. And given its scale, its complexity, and the sheer greed that motivated much of it, anticipating all consequences of the expansion was simply impossible.
IMO, one of ALAC's ongoing roles in this is to track and filter these consequences, focused on minimizing harm from those after-effects that will affect end-users. This is not one of them, from what I can tell.
- Evan
On 20 August 2013 12:57, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
At 20/08/2013 11:53 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
On 20/08/2013 17:20, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Hindsight says that we should have insisted that all string similarity objections be groups together, suing the sum-total of the arguments for and against. But in our collective wisdom, we didn't. Substitute /we/ with /ICANN/
Not really, that was a real WE. Plenty of opportunities for all of us to have caught this earlier...
Also, nice Freudian slip of suing -> using.
Oops
______________________________**_________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.**org/mailman/listinfo/alac<; https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/**display/atlarge/At-Large+ **Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)< https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
What do you mean there is "no formal way" to decide not to proceed? Surely you jest! That is why you have Boards. Now, we have a Jamaican saying loosely translated means 'any way you turn, you will get speared'. Undoubtedly the case here that every action has legal jeopardy associated. For if ICANN were to accept that in two cases the evidence for 'confusingly similar' trumps but in one case and for the same string the fella who decided must be a mouth breather, then men would have lost their reason! And the person aggrieved would have standing - good standing under various codes - to sue in federal court. And, if I were a lawyer and itching for a good fight, I would take their money. Reason - and good sense - dictates this is a case of all....or none. But it would not be the first time that facts and reason are sacrificed for expediency. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
My understanding is that legally we are in murky water, since we seemingly have no formal way to stop the applications that have passed the objection, and no way to overturn the rejection, yet all three must be treated the same way.
So perhaps you can define what "good sense" dictates?
Hindsight says that we should have insisted that all string similarity objections be groups together, suing the sum-total of the arguments for and against. But in our collective wisdom, we didn't.
Alan
At 20/08/2013 10:03 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
.....the zealot Paul [of Christian scriptures] says it this way 'we see in part, and we prophesy in part'.
So now then, here's a perfect opportunity to see if good sense will prevail. -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Verisign filed string-similarity objections against the three applications for .CAM. Two were decided last week (by the same panelist) against Verisign. The third, hear by a different panelist, decided for Verisign.
A string similarity decision is supposed to be based on the strings themselves and not the usage, but the AG does not contemplate this occurrence.
http://unitedtld.com/icann-must-now-decide-string-similarity-question/
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
Hong Xue -
JJS -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond